create_deck

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutation, but it does not specify what happens if the deck already exists, whether permissions are required, if it is idempotent, or any side effects. The example hints at nested structure creation but leaves failure modes unexplained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical example. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, return values are covered elsewhere, but the description still leaves key behavioral details unaddressed (e.g., duplicate handling, permission requirements) and completely omits the output_file parameter. For a mutation tool with two parameters and no annotations, this is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to deck_name through the '::' subdeck example, but it provides zero information about output_file. The description partially covers one parameter but leaves another entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the action ('Create a new deck or subdeck') and the resource (deck), with an example that clarifies the subdeck naming convention via '::'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_deck, rename_deck, and change_deck.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The example 'Computer Science::Algorithms' implies how to use deck_name for subdecks, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., change_deck) or any exclusions, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.